1 


53  i  •  73 

W  Z5£s 


SPEECH 


0  F 


MR.  LEVI  WOODBURY 

•  OF  NEW  HAMPSHIRE, 


REPEAL  OF  THE  INDEPENDENT  TREASURY. 

_ / 


In  Senate ,  Wednesday,  June  9,  1841. — The  bill  to  re¬ 
peal  the  Independent  Treasury  having  been  taken 
up,  the  question  being  on  its  passage, 

Mr.  WOODBURY  said:  It  was  my  misfortune, 
sir,  to  be  in  a  minority  cn  the  committee  which  re¬ 
ported  this  bill.  I  have  heard  nothing  since  to 
weaken  my  objections  to  the  repeal  of  what  is  called 
the  Sub-Treasury,  but  some  things  to  strengthen 
them  greatly.  The  die,  however,  is  cast;  the  Sub- 
Treasury  must,  I  presume,  be  abolished.  But  I 
fell  it  due  to  my  opinions,  expressed  in  the  com¬ 
mittee,  as  well  as  to  friends,  and  the  importance  of 
the  question  to  the  whole  country,  that  the  reasons 
for  my  opposition  to  this  hasty  and  extraordinary 
change  in  a  great  system  for  managing  the  finances 
for  the  Government,  for  the  whole  Union,  should  be 
publicly  given.  I  am  aware  of  the  impatience  felt 
by  the  majority  for  a  decision,  and  shall,  there¬ 
fore,  use  all  possible  brevity. 

It  is  difficult  to  comprehend  the  causes  of  so 
much  haste  in  acting  on  the  present  subject.  Why 
repeal  what  exists  till  some  plan  is  presented  instead 
of  it?  Let  us  have  what  you  consider  the 
bane  and  antidote  before  us  at  once.  But,  on 
the  contrary,  we  are  in  this  case  asked  to  de¬ 
stroy  an  existing  system,  in  full  and  suc- 
essful  operation,  and  which  would  continue  to 
be  so,  if  fairly  administered,  without  expressly  pre¬ 
senting  any  substitute  whatever.  We  pull  down 
our  present  house,  to  use  the  simile  of  the  Senator 
who  originated  this  measure,  without  a  new  one 
elsewhere  to  reside  in,  or  even  a  shantee.  No,  sir, 
not  even  a  log  cabin  for  shelter  till  another  house  is 
built.  We  thus  depart,  also,  from  legislative  usage 
in  all  like  cases.  The  act  of  June,  1836,  in  regu¬ 
lating  the  Slate  bank  system,  did  not  repeal  the  for¬ 
mer  one  till  the  new  regulations  could  be  provided 
and  duly  executed,  So  the  Sub-Treasury  act  did 
not  repeal  the  State  bank  system  till  the  Sub-Trea¬ 
sury  had  time  to  be  carried  into  full  force.  He 
challenged  gentlemen  to  cite  a  precedent  for  any 
such  rashness  as  the  present.  Even  in  1816  the 
public  funds  were  not  forbidden  to  be  kept  as  be¬ 
fore,  till  the  United  States  Bank  was  chartered  and 
in  full  operation.  We  create,  then,  a  sort  of  dicta¬ 
torship  as  to  the  finances  in  the  President  or  Secre¬ 
tary  of  the  Treasury,  till  some  new  system  is  here¬ 
after  established  by  law.  We  leave  the  sacred 
funds  of  the  public,  in  a  period  of  profound  peace, 


and  with  no  emergency,  no  urgent  necessity  im¬ 
pending,  to  the  arbitrary  will  or  caprice  of  mere 
Executive  discretion. 

There  is  n©  escape  from  the  conclusion  as  to 
the  lawless  expediency  which  will  then  reign, 
unless,  by  mere  construction,  some  other  sys¬ 
tem  is  revived  by  this  repeal.  The  repeal  would 
be  on  its  face  uncertain,  vague,  loose,  i  t  cuts  loose 
from  the  old  moorings,  and  puts  to  sea  with  the 
whole  public  revenue,  without  rudder  ot  compass. 
But  it  is  said  that  much  can  be  remedied  by  impli¬ 
cation,  by  construction,  by  discretion.  Then  in 
abolishing  the  Sub-Treasury,  we  abolish  what  is  a 
•system,  well  considered,  and  in  full  force,  and 
we  do  this  for  one  to  exist  by  implication,  and  that 
may  mean  any  thing  or  nothing,  to  suit  tljose  who 
administer  it — one  temporary,  not  certain  in  its 
character,  gone  into  disuse,  obsolete,  impractica¬ 
ble,  and  which,  if  no  better  is  devised  immediately, 
may  be  fas  ened  upon  us  for  years  as  the  law  of 
the  land.  I  know  that  repealing  a  repealing  sta¬ 
tute,  according  to  an  old  technical  principle,  well 
settled  in  Blackstone,  Bacon,  and  Coke,  revives  in 
force  the  act  existing  before  the  first  repeal.  We 
shall  have,  then,  apparently,  the  act  of  January, 
1836;  and  bad  and  impracticable  in  many  respects  as 
that  act  is  admitted  by  many  of  them  to  be,  they 
would  justify  their  course  in  reviving  it,  by  the 
apology,  that  a  better  system  can  and  will  soon 
be  substituted  for  it. 

But  are  there  not  more  enemies  to  the  Sub- 
Treasury,  than  friends  to  any  particular  successor? 
Can  all  who  vote  against  the  former,  unite  in  fa¬ 
vor  of  a  Bank  like  the  last  United  States  Bank?  Or 
will  all  take  a  fiscal  agent,  not  a  Bank,  and  which 
so  many  of  them  have  heretofore  denounced? 
Again:  will  all  unite  in  any  improvement  of  the  act 
of  1836?  We  know  to  the  contrary;  and  thus, with 
the  best  intentions  sbon  to  have  some  different  sysj 
tern,  except  what  will  spring  up  constructively  after 
a  simple  repeal  of  the  Sub-Treasury,  the  country 
may  never  get  one.  Look  at  the  experience 
on  these  hopes  and  good  intentions  in  this  very  Se¬ 
nate.  Last  March  we  were  in  such  haste  to  get  a 
Public  i  Printer  acceptable  to  [the  majority,  that 
it  was  deemed  necessary,  so  as  to  organize, 
to  remove  Messrs.  Blair  and  Rives,  though 
fairly  chosen,  and  regular  contractors  under 
bond,  without  their  assent,  and  without  a 


2 


hearing  or  trial.  Yet  we  are  now  in  the  se¬ 
cond  week  of  another  session,  and  no  successors  to 
them  have  been  chosen,  or  attempted  to  be  chosen. 
Did  gentlemen  at  that  time  dream  of  such  extraor¬ 
dinary  delay?  The  improved  officers,  the  reform 
and  new  organization  which  was  so  indispensable 
Jhen  as  not  to  be  delayed  scarce  a  day,  strangely 
remains  yet  unaccomplished.  Gentlemen  may  find 
troubles,  and  family  schisms  and  procrastination 
as  to  the  new  fiscal  agent  they  intend  soon 
to  create,  which  may  lead  to  even  longer  de¬ 
lay  than  has  occurred  in  the  appointment  of  new 
printers. 

In  the  mean  time  this  body  and  the  Union  may 
he  subjected  to  the  discretion  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasu¬ 
ry,  in  keeping  and  disbursing  the  public  money,  and 
which  the  Senate  has  been  subjected  to  in  its  chief 
officers  since  last  March,  in  respect  to  its  public 
printing.  We  have  been  too  oiten  of  late  years 
forced  into  this  condition  of  mere  construction. 
Who  has  done  our  printing  since,  and  at  what 
price?  and  by  whose  direction,  and  under  what  law? 
Nobody,  nobody,  sir,  except  under  the  arbitrary 
will  of  o or  President pro  Lem.  and  our  Secretary. 
Exercised  that  will  may  have  been  discreetly,  and 
doubtless  with  good  intention;  but  under  what  law, 
what  Constitution,  or  what  printed  rule?  Are  we 
then  to  be  governed  by  star  chamber  commissions  or 
State  circulars?  Gentlemen  felt  much  more  jealous 
and  sensirive  on  these  subjects  of  unlimited  discre¬ 
tion  in  1836,  it  seems,  than  now;  and  the  union  of 
the  purse  and  sword,  which  was  then  the  burden 
of  daily  denunciation — that  very  union  they  are, 
by  this  precipitate  repeal,  as  I  shall  endeavor  soon 
to  demonstrate,  th  -:y  are  forewarned,  and  deliberate¬ 
ly,  voting  to  produce.  Yes;  to  produce  it  for  a  time, 
they  cannot  but  admit;  and  for  months,  if  not  years, 
all  will  concede  is  possible,  if  not  probable.  To 
accomplish  this  union,  what  is  proposed  to  be  pre¬ 
viously  d  ne? 

Independent  of  the  unprecedented  manner, 
what  is  the  substance  of  our  action  to  be  on 
this  occasion?  Wnat  kind  of  a  system  do  we 
abolish — and  why?  And  what  kind  of  a  system  do 
we  virtually  substitute  for  it?  Even  for  a  day, 
or  an  hour,  as  the  gen'leman  from  Vir¬ 
ginia  said  yesterday,  we  should  not  uselessly  leave 
the  public  funds  to  discretion.  Is  it  for  the  mere 
whim  of  change — change — change — and  change 
also  for  the  worse,  that  we  must  pass  the  repeal, 
and  the  repeal  of  a  great  measure  affecting  mil¬ 
lions  of  people,  and  millions  on  millions  of  the  pub¬ 
lic  treasure? 

What  are  the  reasons,  then,  for  action  upon  it? 
Why,  forsooth,  the  mover  of  the  measure  says  no  rea¬ 
son  need  be  given.  It  is  a  case  already  decided.  The 
people  have  returned  a  verdict  against  the  Sub- 
Treasury,  and  we  have  come  here  merely  to  enter 
ap  judgment  against  the  Sub-Treasury  system 
and  its  friends. 

If  this  be  our  position  in  fact,  I  hope  we  shall 
have  the  benefit  of  that  gentleman’s  experience, 
as  well  as  sympathy,  since  in  1828,  on  the  same 
theory  of  reasoning,  the  people  returned  a  verdict 
against  a  former  Administration,  of  which  he  was 
a  distinguished  member.  But  will  he  admit  now, 
or  did  he  then  admit,  that  the  election  settled  all 


the  points  in  discussion  before  the  people,  and  that 
a  verdict  was  returned  against  him  and  them  on  all 
these  points?  Far  from  it.  We  were  sent  here  to 
examine,  to  reason,  and  to  decide  ourselves  on  rea¬ 
sons  and  facts,  and  not  on  fancied  verdicts. 

We  came  here  to  do  a  great  public  act  on 
behalf  of  seventeen  millions  of  people  and 
twenty-six  States  of  this  Union.  Ought  they 
to  do  this  without  duly  considering  what  was 
the  duty  required  of  them?  And  what  must  be  the 
effect  of  their  act,  whether  that  effect  were  tgmpo- 
rary  or  permanent?  Without  this,  they  could  not 
act  discreetly  in  abolishing  an  important  existing 
system.  Mr.  W.  would  readily  admit,  as  some 
gentlemen  had  suggested,  that  there  had  been  much 
talk  against  the  Sub  Treasury,  and  some  arguments 
during  the  Presidential  cawvass.  *  It  had  been  great¬ 
ly  abused  and  grossly  raisrepresen'ed,  but  he  was 
not  prepared  to  admit  that  there  had  been  any  ver¬ 
dict  of  the  people  against  it.  Was  the  repeal  or 
the  continuance  of  this  law  the  only  issue  made 
before  the  people  at  the  late  election?  Was  the 
result  of  that  election  a  verdict  on  that  i-sue  alone, 
and  not  on  others?  The  Senator  from  Kentucky 
had,  to  be  sure,  said  that  they  came  here  for 
judgment — to  carry  into  execution  the  verdict  of 
the  American  people;  bat  he  would  ask  that  Sena¬ 
tor  again  whether  the  result  of  that  election  was  to 
be  held  as  a  decision  by  the  people  on  all  the  ques¬ 
tions  which  had  been  discussed  before  them?  If 
so,  how  did  it  happen  that  they  were  sitting  here 
in  this  splendid  hall,  bghted  by  the  magnificent  and 
costly  candelabra  and  other  splendid  decorations 
now  before  them?  Had  it  not  been  decided  that 
there  should  be  no  extravagances  of  this  kind,  with 
all  its  unavoidable  expenditure?  That  gentlemen 
must  not  eat  out  of  gold  spoons,  but  must  use  horn? 
That  the  President  must  live  in  a  log  cabin,  and 
not  in  a  palace?  ride  on  a  pony,  and  not  in  a  coach? 
That  they  must  not  indulge  themselves  in  the  luxu¬ 
ry  of  champagne,  but  must  drink  only  hard  cider? 
Did  not  the  verdict  of  the  people  cover  all  that?  It 
was  easy  for  gentlemen  to  talk  about  issues  being 
decided  by  elections,  but  he  asked,  what  had  been 
the  issue  in  1828,  and  what  had  been  the  verdict 
given  then? 

The  Senator  had  had  some  experience  in  such  mat¬ 
ters,  then,  as  before  suggested.  Did  he  believe  that 
the  people  had  passed  a  verdict  on  all  the  ques¬ 
tions  which  had  been  mooted  during  that  elec¬ 
tion?  No;  nor  did  Mr.  W.  They  had  dif- 
ferent'vquestions  argued  then;  they  had  the  ques¬ 
tion  about  soda  water  furnished  at  public  expense, 
about  billiard  tables  paid  for  out  of  the  public 
money,  and  other  grave  issues  of  a  very  different  and 
high  character  as  to  Panama  missions,  and  certain 
Presidential  coalitions.  Did  the  Senator  hold 
that  the  people  had  delivered  their  verdict  on  all 
these  points?  Why  cut  out  the  Sub-Treasu- 
ury  from  all  the  other  subjects  agitated  at  the 
late  election,  then,  and  say  that  the  verdict  of  the 
people  had  been  given  on  that  issue.  But  some  of 
the  gentlemen  held  the  doctrine  that  they  were  not 
bound  even  by  express  written  instructions  from 
their  own  constituents.  Much  less,  then,  were 
they  bound  by  a  verdict  given  on  five  hundred 
issues,  given  at  cross-roads,  given  at  grog-shops, 
and  on  the  hustings.  There  was  nothing  in  this 


argument.  It  answered  very  well  to  talk  about 
for  political  effect;  but  the  people  decided  no  is¬ 
sues  but  such  as  they  put  on  record.  The  issue 
they  decided  was,  that  they  elected  this  man  as 
their  Chief  Magistrate,  and  not  that  man.  That 
was.an  issue  by  which  ail  were  bound,  and  which 
all  must  respect.  But  the  evidence  went  no  further. 
For  that  reason  it  was  that  he  addressed  argu¬ 
ments  to  gentlemen,  and  entreated  them  not  to 
throw  themselves  on  imaginary  or  uncertain  ver¬ 
dicts.  He  asked  them  what  they  were  abolishing? 
What  were  their  reasons  for  abolishing  it,  and 
what  were  the  facts  of  the  case? 

You  propose  to  annul  a  system  which 
facts  sustain  and  sound  principles  justify, 
however  much  it  has  been  availed  from 
Maine  to  Louisiana,  by  the  gross  misrepre¬ 
sentations  and  wanton  libels — caricatures,  coarse 
and  obscene  songs — slump  speeches  and  log  ca¬ 
bin  carousals — all  enlisted  against  it.  But 
in  these  cooler  moments  of  political  strife,  all 
must  admit  that  th®  Sub-Treasury,  though  not 
so  fashionable  in  its  appearance  as  the  marble 
palaces  of  some  bank?,  is  a  plain,  honest,  strait 
forward  system.  To  the  admirers  of  the  improved, 
refined,  polished,  boasted  credit  system  of  recent 
times,  the  Sub-Treasury  may  not  seem  to  deal  so 
flippantly  in  millions  on  paper;  but  what  it  has  B 
its  own.  It  does  not  strut  in  borrowed  plumes,  nor 
does  it  cast  off  its  clothing  if  a  little  old  fashioned, 
or  indeed  homespun,  for  the  dandy  robes  and  es- 
senced  equipments  of  its  rivals — the  lovers  of  the 
improved  modern  modes  of  growing  rich  without 
capital — and  on  the  industry  of  others. 

In  its  documents  and  transactions,  it  may  not 
use  all  the  classical  engravings  of  the  Pennsylva¬ 
nia  United  States  Bank  or  the  Gallipolis  Bank; 
but  it  has  always  redeemed  its  promises  a  little 
more  promptly,  and  indulged  a  little  less  in  unau¬ 
thorized  cotton  specu'ations  or  gambling  purchases 
of  stocks.;  whether  in  railroads,  canals,  or  litho¬ 
graphic  cit:e?;  and  whether  on  the  lakes,  the  Atlan¬ 
tic,  or  the  Mississippi,  or,  passing  the  boundaries  of 
the  Union,  dabbling  in  Texan  scrip,  or  Mexican 
bonds.  It  may  be  somewhat  antiquated.  If  the 
Sub-Trea-ury  be  not  a  new  invention,  like  seme  of 
the  modern  banking,  in  approved  modern  style,  it 
has  the  superior  merit  of  being  justified  by 
'Considerable  experience  in  the  world.  It  was  in 
existence  here  long  in  the  General  Government, 
and  in  most  cf  the  States,  with  county  and  town 
treasurers,  as  well  as  with  more  important  ones, 
andi^s,  substantially,  for  centuries,  been  in  force 
in  i/u-t  of  the  civilized,  safe  and  flourishing  Go 
vernments  of  Europe.  It  is  merely  a  system  to 
keep,  as  the  act  of  1789  simply  provides  to  keep 
the  public  money,  and  not  to  lend  it.  To  keep  it 
safely  till  wanted,  and  not  loosely  to  be  squandered 
in  speculations;  and  to  keep  it  in  specie,  or  its 
equivalent,  so  as  to  have  something  on  hand  useful, 
reliable,  and  honest,  for  the  payment  of  debts,  in¬ 
stead  of  being  left  in  the  mere  rags  or  fog.  This 
is  the  true  substance  of  this  abused  system.  Next, 
it  is  a  system  complete  in  all  its  parts,  and  clear  in 
its  provisions — well  argued— well  matured — well 
guarded — rather  than  the  piebald,  uncertain,  de¬ 
nounced  and  arbitrary  system,  which  must,  in  the 


present  condition  of  the  banking  institutions,  vir  - 
tuaily  succeed  to  it  by  this  unqualified  repeal. 

Furthermore,  it  is  a  system,  above  all  others, 
eminently  constitutional.  It  is  partly  developed  in. 
that  holy  instrument  itself,  and  it  was  one  of  the 
first  offspring  of  legislation  under  it — imperfect 
and  limited  then,  I  admif,  but  yet  essentially  the 
same  as  now,  except  more  carefully  and  explicitly 
regulated  now,  and  suited  to  our  increased  territo¬ 
ry,  numbers,  and  wealth. 

In  the  next  place  the  Sub-Treasury  is  a  system 
independent.  This  has  justly  been  its  title,  and  one 
of  its  boasts.  It  neither  creeps  nor  cringes  to  cor¬ 
porations  or  bank  directors  for  aid,  but  has  within 
itself  officers,  safes,  vaults,  and  powers,  rendering 
if,  like  the  General  Government  as  to  States,  self- 
moving,  self-acting,  self-efficient,  and  thus  inde¬ 
pendent, . 

It  is,  also,  a  system  that  can  be  enforced.  It  has 
proved  practicable,  notwithstanding  all  prophecies 
to  the  contrary,  and  will  continue  to  prove  so,  if 
properly  administered,  and  if  such  amendments  are 
made  in  details,  not  affecting  its  vital  principles,  as 
experience  may  require.  Its  fruits  thus  have  been, 
salutary;  its  officers  are  amenable  to  us,  nod  not  to 
the  banks  or  the  States;  and  their  operations  are  re¬ 
gulated  by  us,  and  not  by  o’hers,  over  whom  we 
have  no  control. 

It  is  a  system  economical.  I  s  whole  expenses 
yearly,  after  ifs  operations  besan,  will  ke  scarce 
half  what  the  new  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  pro¬ 
poses  indirectly  to  give  a  Bank  of  the  United 
States,  by  borrowing  four  millions  on  interest,  to  be 
ured  as  a  surplus  in  the  Treasury,  and  of  course 
to  be  deposited  in  his  new  National  Bank,  to  be 
used  there  without  compensation  for  loans  and  ac¬ 
commodations. 

It  is  likewise  a  safe  system.  Wha'ever  Mr. 
Ewing  may  say  as  to  losses  in  c  nnection 
with  it,  he  takes  special  care  in  his  amount  of 
losses,  to  go  back  twelve  years  instead  of  one  year 
since  this  system  begun.  He  thus  speak^  of  losses 
by  millions  within  twelve  years,  and  which  must 
have  been  under  the  United  States  Bank  system, 
and  State  Bank  system.  But  he  does  not  specify 
the  loss  of  a  dollar  under  this  system  alone. 

[Mr.  Clay,  speaking  across,  said  the  accounts 
ha/e  not  been  yet  settled.] 

Mr.  Woodbury  replied.  No  losses  have  yet 
been  made  known,  and  if  any  existed,  or 
were  believed  to  exist,  the  powers  that  be 
would  not  be  slow  in  publishing  them.  The 
new  Secretary  dwells  also  on  its  exposure  to 
robberies, when  not  one  has  ever  taken  place;  while 
within  the  period  of  its  existence,  banks  without 
number  have  been  robbed  in  all  possible  ways  and 
to  almost  all  possible  amounts.  It  has  been  almost 
a  universal  wreck  in  some  States.  Just  on  the  eve 
of  our  arrival  here,  and  in  an  adjoining  county, 
one  seems  to  have  been  robbed  of  more  than  the 
amount  of  its  whole  capital.  Neither  the  President, 
nor  Secretary,  nor  the  keeper  of  the  money,  could 
touch  a  dollar  of  it,  except  as  the  law  directs,  with¬ 
out  a  robbery  and  condign  punishment.  The  coun¬ 
try  has  been  made  to  believe  wrongfully,  that  any 
of  these  officers  could  take  the  money  at  pleasure, 
and  thus  had  entire  control  over  the  purse. 

Nor  could  the  President,  Secretary,  or  others. 


4 


loan  a  dollar  of  the  public  money  under  fee  Sab- 
Treasury,  without  danger  of  fine  and  imprison- 
men — without,  indeed,  being  burglars  or  thieves 
—and  the  penitentiary  reclaiming  its  fugitives.  This 
was  not  a  system  where  the  tunds  can  be  applied 
to  maintain  political  favorites — or  to  buy  up  poli¬ 
tical  presses — or  to  circulate  political  speeches  and 
pamphlets — or  to  fee  counsel — or  to  give  sauries  of 
$100/000  to  single  officers.  But  under  the  Bank 
system,  its  officers  could  and  have  taken  millions 
on  millions  without  authority  or  punishment — and 
loaned  or  speculated  with  it  to  the  four  quarters 
of  the  globe.  Our  ears  have  been  almost  stunned 
with  the  crash  of  banks  around  us  in  every  quar¬ 
ter.  Scarce  a  wave  floats  by  us  that  does  not  bear 
fragments  of  min.  Indeed,  this  very  bill  of  re¬ 
peal  contains  a  high  and  deserved  compli¬ 
ment  to  the  safety  of  the  Sub-Treasury  system, 
however  much  questioned  by  Mr.  Ewing,  for  it  re¬ 
enacts  one  of  its  prominent  and  much  abused  pro¬ 
visions  to  punish  defaults  and  embezzlements. 

Again,  how  much  safer  is  its  currency?  What 
would  have  been  the  credit  of  the  General  Govern¬ 
ment  the  last  four  y  ears,  wiih  United  Stales  Bank 
notes  on  hand  for  public  payments,  lied  Dog  notes, 
Brandon  Bank  bills — and  all  the  shinplaster  litter? 
It  would  have  been  as  low  as  that  of  many  of  the 
spendthrifts,  speculators,  and  partisan  vagabonds, 
who  have  assailed  it,  instead  of  being  as  high  as 
any  Government  in  the  civilized  world.  What 
would  have  been  the  losses  aho  in  its  receipts 
and  expenditures  with  such  depreciated  trash? 

In  1816,  by  taking  such  paper,  the  loss 
was  computed  by  Mr.  Gallatin,  to  the  Govern¬ 
ment  alone,  at  near  four  millions;  and  by  a  com¬ 
mittee  of  the  House  of  Representatives  in  1832,  it 
was  computed  at  the  appalling  amount  of  thirty- 
four  millions. 

Another  of  its  excellences  is,  iu  comparative 
freedom  from  Executive  influence.  The  distortions 
of  party  have,  however,  charged  and  blackened  it 
all  over  the  country  with  being  the  reverse  in  this 
respect — with  what  truth  and  justice,  let  an  impar¬ 
tial  examination  of  the  act  demonstrate.  Not  an 
officer  of  importance  can  be  appointed  under  it, 
without;  the  control  and  approval  of  the  Senate. 
But  under  the  other  system,  the  Bank  that  held 
the  money  was  ^elected  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  alone,  or  by  the  President  alone,  with¬ 
out  any  interference  of  the  Senate.  They  were 
changed  at  pleasure,  too,  by  them,  and  its 
officers  by  the  Bank  directors  or  Bank  stockhold¬ 
ers.  On  the  contrary,  the  officers  of  the  Treasury 
could  not  be  changed  without  the  sanction  of  the 
Senate.  Yet  the  partisan  cry  has  been  the  Sub- 
Treasury!  increased  Executive  influence!  Unfound¬ 
ed.  It  has  diminished  such  influence  in  every  way. 
I  If  the  officers  can  be  removed  now,  without 
cause — and  such  things  seem  possible,  by  the  sud¬ 
den  new  appointments,  since  the  4  h  of  March,  of 
Receivers  General  at  Boston,  New  York,  and 
Charleston — so  the  banks  could  have  been  before 
Ibis  system,  or  at  least  their  officers  could  have 
been,  and  by  stockholders,  politicians  out  of  office, 
as  well  as  by  the  President?  Whether  reasons  are 
yet  to  be  given,  remains  yet  to  be  seen.  If  they 
are,  or  if  the  Senate  does  its  duty,  it  will  be  known 
whether  Executive  influence  is  not  checked  or  re¬ 


strained,  instead  of  being  increased.  Nobody  had 
been  displaced  before  for  these  receiver;,  and  n$ 
charges  whatever  have  been  published  against 
their  irreproachable  characters. 

But  more  of  this  power  and  practice  of  removal 
on  some  future  occasion,  when  we  will  see  how 
proscription  has  been  proscribed  by  this  reforming 
Administration,  and  how  it  has  put  down,  among 
its  other  reforms,  the  rewarding  of  political  parti¬ 
sans  by  office — how  it  has  set  officers  free  from  fear 
and  favor,  and  emancipated  them — bow  office-hold¬ 
ers  have  ceased  to  be  pliant  creatures  of  the  Execu¬ 
tive,  and  how  members  of  Congress  have  been  ex¬ 
cluded  from  Executive  influence,  by  being  excluded 
from  any  share  in  the  odious  spoils  of  office. 

Again,  as  to  the  comparative  influence  of  the 
Executive  out  of  doors  in  pecuniary  matters  under 
the  Sub -Treasury  and  former  svstems;  let  them 
come  down  to  facts.  Could  the  Executive  put  his 
hands  into  the  vaults  of  the  Sub-Treasury  and  take 
out  a  single  dollar  without  subjecting  himself  to  be 
sent  to  the  penitentiary?  Not  a  dollar  could  be  drawn 
out  but  by  warrant*  and  drafts.  Neither  the  President 
nor  his  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  could  take  from 
its  custo  !y  enough  to  buy  a  pen,  nor  could  they 
lean  out  the  public  money  for  purposes  of  specu¬ 
lation  or  gambling.  If  they  attempted  such  a  thing, 
they  would  be  convicted  of  embezzlement  and  sent 
to  ptison.  Was  this  the  case  under  the  bank  sys¬ 
tem?  Could  not  the  Executive,  or  the  Secretary, 
in  person,  or  through  their  friends,  be  accommoda¬ 
ted  with  loans  by  a  Bank  of  the  United  States 
or  by  the  pet  banks?  Had  not  fee  public  money 
been  lent  in  thousands  and  hundreds  of  thousands 
to  friends  of  the  Bank,  both  out  of  Congress  and  in 
Congress?  But  when  had  a  dollar  of  the  public 
money  been  loaned  under  the  Sub-Treasury?  The 
thing  could  not  be  done  without  burglary  and  theft. 
.And  yet,  strange  to  tell,  the  community  seemed  im¬ 
pressed  with  the  idea  that  under  that  much  abased 
system  the  President  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Trea¬ 
sury  could  take  and  use  for  their  own  purposes 
ju  t  as  much  of  the  public  money  as  they  pleased. 
Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Sub-Treasury,  in 
every  way,  restricted  and  reduced,  instead  of  in- 
increased  Executive  influence;  and  one  of  the  gor- 
gons  conjured  up  against  it  before  the  community 
turns  out  to  be  mere  vapour  and  false  glare. 

But  the  Sub-Treasury  system  had  yet  one  other 
and  infinitely  greater  excellence.  It  did  not  stimu¬ 
late  the  spirit  of  wild  and  reckless  speculation  by 
loanmg  out  the  public  money.  All  such  loans 
were,  by  that  law,  strictly  prohibited,  and 
it  was  an  acknowledgment  and  homage  paid  by 
the  Senator  from  Kentucky  to  the  excellence  of  that 
law,that,b?ntas  he  was  on  destroying  the  system,  he 
•"etamed  this  feature  of  it  and  incorporated  it  m  his 
own  bill.  That  system  provided  likewise  no  s*i- 
oi  ulus  for  overtrading.  On  the  contrary,  its  effect  was 
to  subdue  and  quench  that  destructive  tiie  which 
had  consumed  the  prosperity  of  the  country.  It 
kept  th®  public  treasure  where  it  could  be  had 
when  it  was  wanted.  Every  receiver  general, 
every  treasurer  of  a  mint,  must  be  ready  to  pass 
over  every  dollar  of  the  funds  in  his  hands  on 
its  demand  by  the  Government.  Bat  was  this  the 
case  under  the  Bank?  Far  from  it.  When  the 


5 


money  was  most  wanted  by  the  Government,  it  was 
most  wanted  by  the  banks  also.  : 

On  the  other  hand,  it  checked  instead  of  stimu¬ 
lating  expansions  and  overissues.  It  was  calcu¬ 
lated  to  work  a  slow,  but  sure  reform  in  banking, 
in  every  neighborhood  where  much  public  money 
was  collected.  Because  it  throws  back  on  the  spe¬ 
culating  and  expanding  bank  for  specie,  their  ex¬ 
cessive  emissions  of  paper. 

But,  in  the  next  place,  he  was  compelled  to  look 
at  what  must  succeed  this  system  when  it  was  de¬ 
stroyed,  whether  it  was  temporarily  or  permanent¬ 
ly.  What  would  succeed  it  temporarily?  Noth¬ 
ing  was1  provided  in^  the  bill  itself,  but  it  was 
held  that  the  previous  law  revived  ipso  facto. 
Now,  if  the  Sub-Treasury  was  destroyed,  what 
law  would  be  revived  by  its  repeal?  We  were  to 
have  the  act  of  183G,  with  all  its  acknowledged 
imperfections  in  its  train.  Would  this  be  a  better 
System?  Wise  men  did  not  pull  down  one  thing  to 
substitute  another,  unless  that  other  were  a  better. 
The  act  of  1836  was  not  without  some  excellences 
It  contained  a  provision  which  restrained  the  Secre¬ 
tary  from  removing  the  deposites  from  a  bank 
where  they  had  been  placed,  provided  that  bank 
continued  to  redeem  its  notes  in  specie;  it  also 
forbade  the  depositing  of  the  public  money  in 
non-specie  paying  banks,  and  in  banks  issuing 
notes  under  five  dollars.  Some  approved  of  it 
in  the  abstract,  because  it  was  a  system  regulated 
by  law.  When  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  un¬ 
der  President  Jackson,  had  been  forced  to  remove 
the  public  deposites  from  their  former  deposito¬ 
ry,  as  he  v/as  authorized  to  do  by  an  express 
law,  and  there  existed  no  regulated  system 
for  the  safe  keeping  of  them,  he  had  implored 
Congress  to  pass  a  law  for  that  purpose,  and  they 
passed  the  law  of  1836.  It  had  these  excellences. 
But  they  were  countervailed  by  defects  which,  in 
connection  with  commercial  convulsions  and  fo¬ 
reign  oppression,  broke  it  down  in  twelve  months, 
and  it  was  now  a  dead  letter.  One  gentleman  had 
suggested  that  it  may  have  been  destroyed  by 
faults  in  its  administration,  and  not  in  the  system 
itself.  This  suggestion  had  been  made  before. 
Mr.  W.  would  not  argue  whether  this  were  the 
case  of  not,  but  he  saw  ample  cause  for  its  failure 
without  this.  It  provided  that  twelve  or  thir¬ 
teen  millions  of  what  had  been  deposited 
in  safe  banks  should  be  taken  out  of  them  and  di¬ 
vided  among  seventy  or  eighty  others,  for  no  other 
purpose  than  to  give  each  of  them  the  benefit  of 
its  possession.  A  bank  was  to  be  selected  in  every 
State,  and  numbers  in  some  of  the  States,  as  no 
one  could  hold  over  a  certain  ratio  to  its  capital, 
and  the  effect  was  general  stimulation  of  the  com¬ 
munity  to  every  form  of  speculation  and  gam¬ 
bling.  The  banks  were  required  to  pay  interest  for 
the  money,  at  least  for  all  they  held  over  a  given 
proportion,  and  they  consented  to  take  the  money 
obviously  because  they  expected  to  loan  it  out. 
Was  not  this  in  itself  sufficient  to  break  down  any 
set  of  banks  in  the  world?  Could  such  an  opera¬ 
tion  be  accomplished  without  infinite  distress?  To 
force  suddenly  twelve  or  thirteen  millions  of  do! 
lars  out  of  the  channels  of  trade,  and  to  put  it  in 
entirely  different  depositories,  was  an  operation 
which  Mr.  W.  insisted  to  be  one  true  cause 


of  the  ruin  which  followed.  That  alo&e  was 
sufficient  to  account  for  it;  but  on  the  back  of 
this,  there  was  superadded  the  requirement  to  col¬ 
lect  within  nine  months  36  millions  more,  and  pay 
it  over  to  the  States.  Was  it  any  wonder  that  the 
most  ruinous  consequences  should  follow?  No 
discretion  was  left  to  the  Secretary;  the  time  was 
fixed  by  law,  and,  should  he  fail  to  obey,  he  was 
liable  to  be  impeached,  and  was  actually  threatened 
with  impeachment.  This  great  work  he  had  ac¬ 
tually  done  as  to  the  thirteen  millions,  and  then  he 
had  collected  nine  millions,  and  then  nine  more,  and 
deposited  it  with  the  States  in  specie,  or  in  specie 
worth,  and  it  was  emphatically  said  at  the  time  that 
every  instalment  in  the  payment  of  this  money  was 
a  new  turn  of  the  screw.  The  pressure  rose  from 
rheumatism  to  gout,  and  from  gout  to  convulsion. 
All  this  suffering  had  been  attributed  to  the  Execu¬ 
tive  and  to  the  Treasury  Department,  as  though  it 
were  their  wrong,  when,  in  fact,  they  had  but  car¬ 
ried  out  the  law  of  Congress.  Then  bad  come  in  ad¬ 
dition  to  ail  the  rest,  an  unexampled  recoil  from 
abroad,  produced  by  the  course  of  the  Bank  of 
England.  American  credit  was  suddenly  cut  off 
by  millions  at  a  blow,  and  the  distinguished  Ameri¬ 
can  houses  were  obliged  at  once  to  stop  all  their 
open  credits.  Yet  this,  too,  was  charged  upon 
the  Treasury. 

In  such  a  condition,  without  any  fault  on  the 
part  of  the  Executive,  the  United  States  Bank 
went  by  the  board  with  the  others.  The  old  bills 
had  not  all  been  redeemed  in  specie  to  this  day. 
If  its  charter  had  been  renewed,  and  the  forty 
millions  of  public  money  had  then  been  in  its 
vaults  to  be  drawn  out  as  the  fatal  act  of  1836 
imprudently  required,  it  would  have  been  one 
of  the  first  institutions  to  suspend  specie  payments, 
as  it  was,  without  being  compelled  to  disgorge  such 
an  immense  sum  for  the  Government. 

No  intelligent  merchant  or  financier  in  the 
civilized  world  can  be  informed  of  all  the  facts,  un¬ 
disguised,  and  arrive  at  any  different  conclusions. 
To  illustrate,  that  it  was  the  collecting  and  pay¬ 
ing  over  such  immense  sums,  in  connection 
with  the  other  convulsions  which  prostrat¬ 
ed  such  a  system,  rather  than  any  thing  wrong 
in  its  execution,  I  will  trouble  the  Senate  with  a 
single  anecdote. 

In  compliance  with  the  requisitions  of  the  law, 
deposites  were  made  in  North  Carolina,  which 
carried  money  out  of  the  usual  course  of  trade. 
The  order  to  transfer  the  funds  was  given  in  ad¬ 
vance,  payable  in  North  Carolina.  This  was  stre¬ 
nuously  objected  to,  and  the  Secretary  was  asked 
why  be  did  not  make  the  order  payable  in  New 
York?  The  Secretary  was  acquainted  with  the 
operations  of  trade,  and  knew  that  the  order  could 
better  be  met  in  North  Carolina  than  in.  New  York, 
b  cause  New  York  was  then  drained  of  specie,  and 
claims  might  be  due  to  it  in  North  Carolina  suffi¬ 
cient  to  pay  it  there.  Bat  the  drawees  came  to 
him,  and  insisted  thv.t  :  e  drafts  shodld  be  made 
payable  in  New  York.  He  did  so,  and  the  holders 
immediately  went  to  New  York  and  demanded  the 
specie.  The  drawees  at  once  saw  that  by  the 
change  they  had  aggravated  the  evil,  by  losing 
more  specie,  instead  ot  finding  relief;  and  they  en¬ 
treated  that  the  Department  would  make  the  future 


6 


drafts  payable,  as  they  had  been  made  originally, 
in  North  Carolina.  It  was,  however,  the  being 
obliged  to  part  wab  the  public  money  in  such  large 
sums,  in  so  sudden  a  manner  as  the  laws  rendered 
imperative,  that  led  to  embarrassment,  and  not  the 
lorm  or  manner  of  paying  them. 

It  reminded  Mr.  W.  of  the  Irishman  who  was 
ordered  to  be  flogged,  and  when  he  was  flogged  low 
down  wanted  to  be  flogged  higher  up;  bat  when 
flogged  higher  up,  wanted  to  be  flogged  lower  down. 
Mr.  W.  had  been  determined  to  execute  the  law’’, 
cost  what  it  would,  and  let  those  who  made  it  be 
answerable  to  posterity,  that  just  tribunal  whose 
judgments,  though  often  slow,  were  ever  sure  and 
true.  As  might  naturally  have  been  expected,  the 
newly  made  deposite  banks,  flushed  with  the  posses¬ 
sion  of  their  twelve  or  thirteen  millions  of  dollars, 
speedily  disgorged  this  treasure  upon  the  commu- 
nit,  (as  the  former  deposite  banks  had  already 
done,)  for  they  had  been  obliged  to  pay  interest  for 
it,  and  were  glad  to  loan  it  out  as  soon  as  possible. 
The  consequence  of  this,  in  both  sets  of  banks,  had 
been  that  the  land  sales,  which  usually  realized 
from  two  to  three  millions  of  dollars,  were  swelled 
to  twenty-four  millions  in  a  single  year.  For  the 
prices  of  public  land,  too,  were  kept  low,  while  all 
other  prices  rose,  and  the  banks  virtually  gave  cre¬ 
dit  for  the  purchase,  instead  of  the  Treasury.  The 
banks  which  hsd  loaned  their  money  to  individuals 
instead  of  the  Government,  giving  credit  or  loans 
for  the  lands  as  formerly,  when  called  upon  by  Go¬ 
vernment  to  pay,  could  not  collect  itf  in, 
nor  what  had  been  lavishly  loaned  for  other 
speculations  and  trade,  and  the  natural  con¬ 
sequence  was,  that  they  all  went  to  wreck 
— suspension  was  inevitable.  But  these  lomet)- 
table  consequences  were  not  to  be  charged  to 
the  adminietsation  of  the  pet  bank  system,  bat  to 
the  provisions  of  the  law  itself.  And  were  gentle¬ 
men  called  upon  now  to  revive  such  a  system  as 
this?  Must  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  scatter 
the  publ'c  money  among  eighty  banks  and  revive 
again  th®  scenes  of  1836,  so  far  as  the  public  mo¬ 
ney,  diminished,  to*  be  sure,  greatly  in  amount, 
might  permit  or  require? 

It  was  injudicious — almost  insane.  But  this, 
in  truth,  would  not  be  the  real  result  of  the 
repeal.  The  keeping  of  the  money,  then,  though 
nominally  by  the  law  of  1836,  would,  in  fact 
and  in  truth,  be  cast  on  the  unlimited  discretion  of 
the  Treasury  Department;  for  the  law  having  been 
rendered  impracticable  by  the  change  cf  times,  the 
Department  must  necessarily  be  thrown  back  on 
the  laws  in  force  before  this  was  enacted.  Mr.  W. 
would  undertake  to  say  that  there  could  not  now 
be  five  banks  found  in  the  whole  United  States 
such  as  that  act  required  deposite  banks  to  be;  and 
the  act  itself  declared  that  in  such  case  the  Trea¬ 
sury  must  revert  to  the  previous  laws,  and  those 
previous  laws  allowed  the  deposites  to  be  placed 
in  banks  which  did  not  pay  specie;  and  to  place  it 
there,  not  m'erely  on  special  but  on  general  depo¬ 
site.  Nor  was  this  any  thing  new — this  very  thing 
had  been  done  by  Secretaries  Campbell  and  Dallas 
for  years  together,  and  it  must  be  done  again. 
The  Pennsylvania  Bank  of  the  United  States 
could  be  selected  as  well  as  any  other,  if  the  Depart¬ 
ment  pleased. 


There  were  other  consequences  which  must  also 
follow.  The  Secretary  would  not  merely  be  com¬ 
pelled  to  use  banka  of  this  description,  but  he  would 
be  stiipped  of  every  facility  in  the  business  of  his 
Department  until  he  uid  make  his  selection  among 
the  banks,  and  place  the  money  there.  He  in¬ 
vited  gentlemen  to  put  inquiries  to  the  present 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  see  w’hat  an¬ 
swers  they  would  get.  The  moment  this  bill 
became  a  law,  the  receivers  general,  as  such,  were 
dead — the  Secretary  could  no  longer  draw  on  them. 
Where  must  he  put  his  money?  What  must  he  do 
with  his  drafts?  In  New  York  immense  sums  were 
coming  in:o  deposite  at  the  rate  of  ten  to  fifty  thou¬ 
sand  dollars  a  day.  The  Secretary  could  not  ar¬ 
range  with  a  bank  to  receive  this  money  under  less 
than  a  week,  and  in  the  meantime  the  Collector  or 
the  Receiver-General  might  have  half  a  million  of 
dollars  under  his  lock  and  key,  and  be  at  the  same 
time  out  of  office.  Who  would  be  liable  then?  Not 
his  sureties,  for  the  new  funds;  their  liabilities  expired 
with  his  office.  In  the  more  distant  p;;rts  of  the 
country,  such  a  state  of  things  might  exist  for  a 
whole  month.  That  time  must  elapse  before  the 
Receiver  knew  that  his  office  was  abolished;  but 
the  Secretary  here  would  know  it,  and  could  not 
draw  upon  him.  What,  then,  must  be  the  result? 
In  one  portion  of  the  country  he  would  draw  on. 
collector.-;  in  another  portion  he  must  act  under  the 
law  of  1836;  and  instill  another  he  must  be  left  at 
his  discretion,  under  a  construction  of  the  old  law. 
Here  would  be  three  or  four  fiscal  systems  in  ope¬ 
ration  at  one  and  the  same  time;  and  ail  this  state 
of  confusion  must  ensue  because  gentlemen  would 
insist  upon  repealing  one  plan  before  they  had  pro¬ 
vided  another. 

In  the  mean  time,  what  was  to  be  done  with  the 
contracts  for  building — with  the  new  vaults,  books, 
and  furniture?  Where  should  marshal-*;  and  district 
attorneys  deposit  their  collections — often  immense? 
How  should  patentees  or  postmasters  get  along? 
All  wculd  be  left  in  chaos.  It  would  be  confusion 
worse  confounded.  Gentlemen  should  at  least 
have  retained  the  mints  as  depositaries,  if  nothing 
else,  till  they  got  new  agents.  They  should  have 
at  least  allowed  the  hardy  emigrant  from  the  east 
on  the  seaboard,  before  crossing  the  mountains,  to 
continue  to  pay  for  his  land,  if  he  pleased,  before 
he  started,  instead  of  carting  specie  across  the 
Aileghanies.  What  is  done  with  the  clause  that 
goes  to  prohibit  any  new  specie  circular?  Abolished. 
What  with  the  three  clerks  in  the  Treasury  Depart¬ 
ment  created  under  this  act?  Abolished.  But  no 
more  of  details. 

Another  question  arose  as  to  what  money  the 
Treasurer  should  receive.  It  was  contended  that 
he  would  be  under  the  act  of  1836.  If  so,  then 
all  public  dues  must  be  paid  in  gold  and  silver. 
There  was  not  a  bank  in  New  England  which  did 
not  issue  or  pay  out  of  others  bills  under  five  dol¬ 
lars,  and  the  act  of  1836  forbid  the  receipt  of  any 
notes  of  any  such  banks.  He  was  prohibited 
from  receiving  their  notes,  though  redeemable  in 
specie,  and  therefore,  instead  of  receiving  bis  dues 
on e-haif  in  convertible  paper  and  one  half  in  spe¬ 
cie,  as  in  the  next  month,  he  must  have  the  whole 
amount  in  hard  money,  or  violate  his  oith.  Some 
gentlemen,  indeed,  on  this  side,  might  like  the  mea- 


sure  on  this  account,  but  would  the  friends  cf  this 
bill  vote  for  it  in  this  view  of  its  effects? 

They  would  soon,  if  no  other  system  was  agreed 
on,  begin  to  reason  as  on  the  repeal,  that  the  peo¬ 
ple  had  rendered  a  verdict  against  specie.  Over 
three-fourths  of  the  Union  now,  and  near  all  of  it 
in  1837 — the  practice  of  a  majority  of  the  people 
and  of  the  State  Legislatures,  it  will  be  said,  were 
against  specie,  and  the  specie  circular.  The 
sound  sense  and  strong  moral  feeling  of  the  people 
in  many  places  have  been  deluded  and  persecuted  in 
favor  of  depreciated  paper.  It  is  not  merely  a 
vitiated  taste,  but  gambling  speculators  have  made 
them  believe  it  is  for  their  interest  to  have  a  new 
paper  standard,  and  not  the  gold  and  silver  Wash¬ 
ington  and  his  compeers  sought  to  introduce  and 
perpetuate. 

Let  me  admonish,  then,  all  who  hear  me,  that 
concerning  the  currency  to  be  received  for  public 
duties  in  the  new  state  of  affairs,  and  as  to  any 
supposed  verdict  of  the  people  thereon,  if  Congress 
adjourned  without  providing  a  substitute  for  the 
Sub-Treasury,  it  would  soon  be  argued  and  found 
that  the  joint  resolution  of  1816  was  not  impera¬ 
tive.  Its  language  was  not,  that  paper  of  a  cer¬ 
tain  description  should  be  taken,  but  that  it 
ought  to  be  taken.  Yes;  it  ought.  But  suppos¬ 
ing  the  Secretary  could  not  get  it  readily, 
how  then?  What  had  been  the  argument  in 
1837  on  that  poini?  Shinplasters  were  then  cur¬ 
rent,  and  what  had  been  called  the  ten  cent  rebel¬ 
lion  in  Boston  had  been  gotten  up,  because  specie 
was  demanded  by  the  collector.  The  Secretary 
would  say  he  could  not  get  convertible  notes,  and 
the  verdict  of  the  people  was,  that  in  that  case  he 
must  take,  depreciated  paper.  By  this  state  of 
things,  all  specie  and  specie  paying  banks  must  go 
by  the  board.  Discretion  was  said  to  be  the  law  of 
tyrants;  yet  now  the  Treasury  was  to  be  let  loose 
again,  to  use,  at  pleasure,  the  paper  of  non-specie¬ 
paying  banks;  and  this  (he  Secretary,  it  would  be 
argued,  could  not  avoid,  if  he  respected  public 
opinion. 

But  it  was  said  that  we  should  soon  have  a  sub¬ 
stitute.  Some  great  fiscal  agent  was  to  be  provi¬ 
ded,  or  else  an  old  fashioned  Bank  of  the  United 
States.  Mr.  W.  would  not  argue  that  question; 
with  him  the  time  was  gone  by;  but  he  would  ask 
the  members  of  (hat  Senate  whether  they  were  rea¬ 
dy  to  repeal  the  existing  law,  to  re-establish  such 
an  institution  as  the  old  Bank  of  the  United  States? 
If  they  were,  very  well,  bnt  he  could  not  yet  tell 
whether  such  a  plan  had  been  matured  and  was  to 
he  presented.  Why  not  wait  till  then,  and  see 
•whether  a  majority  of  this  body  will  take  an  insti¬ 
tution  instead  of  the  Sub-Treasury,  which  bas  been 
condemned  by  most  of  the  Democratic  fathers  of 
the  Constitution — which  the  present  President  him¬ 
self  concedes  has  been  condemned  by  the  people — 
which  has  been  condemned  by  experience  as  well 
as  reason — which  has  no  power  to  resist  suspen¬ 
sions  and  enormous  losses,  and  which  a  few  years 
ago,  after  becoming  belter  and  stronger  by  a  new 
State  charter,  and  getting  rid  of  a  bad  partner  in  the 


General  Government,  as  its  chief  officer  declared, 
has  since  blasted  the  livelihood  of  thousands  of  wi¬ 
dows  and  orphans,  and,  in  the  opinion  of  many, 
covered  the  whole  country  with  infamy  and  ruin? 
Do  genilemen  wish  to  abolish  the  Sab-Treasury  for 
such  a  Bank?  Do  they  wuh  to  give  Congressional 
sanction  at  home  and  abroad  to  such  enormities? 

Next:  do  the  West  and  Southwest  want  the  still 
lower  prices,  and  ruinous  sacrifices  of  property, 
caused  by  putting  such  a  Bank  in  operation  from 
1817  to  1820?  Let  gentlemen  read  the  history  of  that 
era,  and  they  will  pause.  They  are  seeking  the 
wrong  remedy  for  the  existing  disease,  as  he  would 
t  hereafter  attempt  to  show  on  some  other  occasion. 
I  It  was  said,  however,  that  we  were  to  have  a  Bank 
that  would  n^t  be  unconstitutional;  it  was  to  be 
free  from  all  objections  of  that  kind.  He  was  glad 
to  hear  it;  but  what  was  the  plan?  Had  not  gen¬ 
tlemen  better  wait  till  they  saw  whether  it  did  avoid 
all  constitutional  difficulty  or  not?  Surely  they 
would  act  ihns  in  their  own  affairs;  why  not  in  the 
affairs  of  the  public?  What  was  this  bank  to  be? 
If  it  was  to  be  a  mere  fiscal  agent  not  incorporated, 
then  it  was  a  Government  bank;  and  he  said  to  gen¬ 
tlemen  that,  by  their  declarations  and  opinions, 
they  were  abolishing  just  such  a  bank,  though  with¬ 
out  the  name.  All  they  had  to  do  was  to  call  the 
Sub-Treasury  a  fiscal  agent,  and  the  thing  would 
be,  by  their  reasoning,  effected.  Was  this  any 
thing  new?  Had  notgentkmen  contended  that  the 
bill  of  1840  went  to  create  a  Treasury  bank?  Yet 
they  were  now  for  destroying  that,  only  to  make 
another.  Here  Mr.  W  quoted  the  title  of  a  speech 
by  Mr.  Clay  in  1840,  which  he  held  in  his 
hand,  in  which  the  Sub-Treasury  was  denominated 
a  Government  bank,  of  which  the  President  of  the 
United  Slates  was  to  be  president,  cashier,  and  teller. 
All  they  had  to  do  was  to  give  the  Secretary  power 
to  issue  small  drafts,  and  the  Sub-Treasury  would 
be  a  Government  bank,  according  to  the  reasoning 
of  this  speech. 

Mr.  CLAY  here  interposed  to  inquire  of  Mr. 
W.  whether  he  rightly  understood  him  as  now  ad¬ 
mitting  that  the  Sub-Treasury*was  a  bank. 

Mr  WOODBURY  replied  in  the  negative.  Your 
speeeh  bad  represented  it  as  a  bank  only  under  the 
supposition  that  the  Secretary  could  cut  up  his 
drafts  into  small  sums,  and  use  them  as  bank 
no!es. 

Mr.  CLA.Y.  Well,  and  could  he  not  do  it? 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  He  d;d  not  do  it.  I  admit 
that  the  argument  itself  is  a  fair  one,  but  he  did  not 
do  it,  nor  could  it  have  been  done  without  sanction 
of  law;  nor  was  it  ever  intended  to  be  done,  unless 
required  by  Congress  to  do  it. 

It  would  then  be  only  a  bank  of  circulation,  but 
not  auo  of  deposite  for  individuals,  ncr  one  of  dis¬ 
count  at  all;  which  last  kind  of  bank  was  made, 
and  especially  a  National  one,  so  open  to  politaic 
favoritism  and  corruption. 

I  will  not,  on  this;  occasion,  detain  .  the  Senate 
longer,  and  did  not  intend  at  this  time  to  say  half 
so  much. 


